This is most likely an out burst of intense Delusion rather then possession. It just goes to show we need to spend more time on addressing mental health problems then not talking about them.

Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Yup. And thanks to the NRA and misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, the Bushmaster is available at your local Walmart!

I agree. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to permit unfettered access to guns by citizens. The intent of the amendment was to permit the state and local militias of the new colonies to have the ability to secure arms to combat the British occupancy. Extending this right to private citizens, and allowing near unfettered access by citizens to guns, was not a legally proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It was a bone thrown to the gun lobby.

I always find it so (sickly) humorous, and so hypocritical and ironic, that strict constructionsists like Justice Scalia will always found their opinions on strict interpretation of the original writers, yet when the malevolent whores of the NRA need a favor, or Bush needs to get the Florida recount submarined, strict constructionism goes out the window. The current right wing of the US Supreme Court is a fraud and an embarrassment.

Wasn't much of a debate when you don't let the opposition talk or explain themselves.Sweden had some good gun control laws too, didn't stop what happened there.

I'm guessing by Sweden you mean Norway. The major difference is that in the past 30 years, I remember this happening once (maybe twice) in the U.K. and once in Norway, but it seems to happen fairly regularly in the U.S.

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

lowlydog wrote:We are 100% responsible for our actions, not 50% or 75% or 99%, but 100%.

Is a person having an epileptic fit "responsible" for his actions? Or a person in fever? What about a person with a brain trauma causing all sorts of delusions? Where do we draw the line?

You are 100% responsible for your own actions(karma).

There are however different types of karma, where you draw the line is entirely up to you.

There is karma that is like drawing a line in the water, passes away very quickly.

There is karma that is like drawing a line in the sand, takes some time but passes away.

There is karma that is like chiseling a line on a rock, takes years and years(many lifetimes) to pass away.

I find it problematic to speak about "responsibility" in this context. The word reminds me of Christian concepts of free will, where your choices are not predetermined, and not random, but just happen somehow in some way for which you are fully "responsible".

Our actions are conditioned by previous actions. Previous actions are conditioned by actions before them, ad nauseam. Which part is "up to me"? Who is "me" anyway?

I understand that a notion of something like that may be benefical in regards to oneself, even if it ultimately an illusion, in the same way as a substantial self. But when in concerns other people? No, absolutely no way. When a person acts wrongly, he is basically ill. What he needs is some form of treatment. This is what Buddhism is about for me.

Originally I was responding to your words: "what you are suggesting is duality; that the cause of this behavior is caused by another being. This is not the teachings of the Buddha. We are 100% responsible for our actions"

Ok, so what if mental disease is caused by spirits? Other diseases are caused by germs. Same thing. Our karma causes both of these things to happen. That doesn't mean that spirits or germs do not exist.

I just don't get the tired references to "Killers kill," "Asahara Shoko," and how Sweden or Norway's laws did not help them etc. that get dragged out with each tragedy as a responses to the simple fact that more guns equals more people killed… 10,728 people killed by hand guns in the US last year… umm there were 8 in Sweden… and last time I checked sarin gas was illegal.

I cannot understand the logic that says allowing people to carry concealed weapons in public places somehow makes us safer or that citizens require automatic weapons. This is not a debate about whether there are other methods besides guns with which to commit mass murder. It is also not a debate about whether there are other contributing factors that come together to make these tragedies. It is also not a debate about whether guns are necessary in some parts of the country for pest control.

Instead, what some citizens are asking for is a conversation about the level of gun saturation in the US and the need to evaluate whether these are appropriate levels. In many ways what is appropriate is a choice for the American people, and it may be that the majority of Americans wish to choose to keep their automatic weapons, however most other countries are choosing (in my opinion) the more sane option of less guns and with it less murders!

The idea too that there is nothing much we can do and pandora's box has been opened is both defeatist and simply not true - other countries have shown that introducing gun control measures as a sane response to mass shootings can work (see Australia)… even Rupert Murdoch is today calling for stronger gun controls in the US!!!

mirage wrote:I find it problematic to speak about "responsibility" in this context. The word reminds me of Christian concepts of free will, where your choices are not predetermined, and not random, but just happen somehow in some way for which you are fully "responsible".

Our actions are conditioned by previous actions. Previous actions are conditioned by actions before them, ad nauseam. Which part is "up to me"? Who is "me" anyway?

I understand that a notion of something like that may be benefical in regards to oneself, even if it ultimately an illusion, in the same way as a substantial self. But when in concerns other people? No, absolutely no way. When a person acts wrongly, he is basically ill. What he needs is some form of treatment. This is what Buddhism is about for me.

Originally I was responding to your words: "what you are suggesting is duality; that the cause of this behavior is caused by another being. This is not the teachings of the Buddha. We are 100% responsible for our actions"

Ok, so what if mental disease is caused by spirits? Other diseases are caused by germs. Same thing. Our karma causes both of these things to happen. That doesn't mean that spirits or germs do not exist.

Responsibility: The state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.

Which part is up to you? The reaction.

Who is "me"? I could give you my take, but this may not be your reality, and the buddha wanted us to experience the truth for ourself.

When a person performs actions that are harmful to others, they are really hurting themselves, who else would do such a thing but a sick or ignorant person? Yes, this person needs treatment, they need the dharma. This is also what I have found by practicing buddhist and other enlightened teachings.

Have you come in contact with spirits that posess this power, or is it simply your reaction to your emotions when coming in contact with the spirit realms that cause the mental disease? You are going to get sick and die this I can promise you, but it will be your reraction to these germs that will decide whether you suffer or not.

Tom wrote:The idea too that there is nothing much we can do and pandora's box has been opened is both defeatist and simply not true - other countries have shown that introducing gun control measures as a sane response to mass shootings can work (see Australia)…

As I posted earlier today on Dhamma Wheel...A compulsory buy back [or other gun control] would never fly here in the US. Many Americans love guns - my brother owns 70 (don't ask me why, I don't have a clue). And as long as the Second Amendment (misinterpreted as it is) and the National Rifle Association are in existence, real gun control is off limits (politically, it's a death sentence) and the attitude is "I'll give you my gun when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands" (NRA slogan - seriously). As long as the bad guys can get anything they want on the black market, from Saturday night specials and fully automatic weapons all the way to rocket launchers, scared citizens will demand the "right to protect" themselves.

America is a land of fear and much hopelessness right now - efforts to remove what little sense of security many people have will be unsuccessful. Gun owners are well organized, vocal, and armed to the teeth. America was born in violence, has lived and glorified violence - and now the results are manifesting. We will reap what we've sown.

Tom wrote:The idea too that there is nothing much we can do and pandora's box has been opened is both defeatist and simply not true - other countries have shown that introducing gun control measures as a sane response to mass shootings can work (see Australia)…

As I posted earlier today on Dhamma Wheel...A compulsory buy back [or other gun control] would never fly here in the US. Many Americans love guns - my brother owns 70 (don't ask me why, I don't have a clue). And as long as the Second Amendment (misinterpreted as it is) and the National Rifle Association are in existence, real gun control is off limits (politically, it's a death sentence) and the attitude is "I'll give you my gun when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands" (NRA slogan - seriously). As long as the bad guys can get anything they want on the black market, from Saturday night specials and fully automatic weapons all the way to rocket launchers, scared citizens will demand the "right to protect" themselves.

America is a land of fear and much hopelessness right now - efforts to remove what little sense of security many people have will be unsuccessful. Gun owners are well organized, vocal, and armed to the teeth. America was born in violence, has lived and glorified violence - and now the results are manifesting. We will reap what we've sown.

I wouldn't say never fly... these things are not permanent and the Second Amendment is no terma... it can be amended and I'm hopeful for change as I said it is really a choice for the American people.

True the bad guys might have rocket launches but a personal arms race is not the answer and is no way to protect yourself!

One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate.

The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators.

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Tom wrote:True the bad guys might have rocket launches but a personal arms race is not the answer and is no way to protect yourself!

Don't worry Tom, we know the Americans have rocket launchers but us Canadians arn't starting an arms race to protect ourselves from them. We don't even think of them as bad guys just a little ignorant.

Tom wrote:True the bad guys might have rocket launches but a personal arms race is not the answer and is no way to protect yourself!

Don't worry Tom, we know the Americans have rocket launchers but us Canadians arn't starting an arms race to protect ourselves from them. We don't even think of them as bad guys just a little ignorant.

Thanks for the correction Kirt - I couldn't agree more, there is no reason whatsoever to own a weapon like this.

It boggles my mind that some argue that possession of something like this should be a right.

Small caliber pistols or something, I can see how one could entertain the argument, but something like this is just ridiculous. If I recall the "batman shooter" also used basically am military-grade weapon which had been repackaged for civilian sale.

The argument you always hear is that these weapons are semi-auto rather than fully auto.

I admit i'm not a gun guy other than a bit of target shooting with pistols years ago, but the distinction is lost on me when the result is the same - deadly indiscriminate spraying of bullets. I know you have to squeeze a trigger more, but clearly this is preventing anyone from causing an insane level of carnage with the weapons.

Some see personal gun ownership (use) as an inalienable right, at the other end of the spectrum there are those who see personal gun ownership (use) as unquestionably dangerous and absurd in the extreme. Here on this forum, like everywhere else humans communicate with each other, members have strongly held diametrically opposed views about personal gun ownership (use) and as such this topic has served its function already as a place to voice both sides.